hoopla

Sometimes people make better coaches than players and vice versa. Look at Tim Watson a superstar player but was a shocking coach. Voss ended up on the scrap heap and Hird just wrecked his club but has survived. Roos knows what these people can bring and there good points.

Absolutely right. Ex- battlers can often relate more easily to battlers than natural stars.

It was important that we develop a group of coaches who understand each other and have a common philosophy. I'm sure one of the problems we had last year was that the players were getting mixed messages from the coaches - hence their hesitancy.The fact that many of new coaches know and understand one another already.is a big plus ..... especially as they come from a winning culture

Daniel McPherson was a terrific gutsy little player ........ and his coaching pedigree is first class. The fact that he has been out of the game for a couple of years suggests that he was specifically sought out by Roos who must rate him very highly as a leader, motivator etc.. That's good enough for me

Brisbane, given Maloney's presence. Neither of them have been as effective since they have not played together. It would be a cheap and very beneficial investment for them, particularly given brisbane's difficulties in keeping players. Are there any which we would be interested?

Interesting that no one else has commented on this one. The Moloney link does give it some cred.............. but I'm not sure he fits in alongside Leeunberger

R

jamar will be traded

Who to?

(Bearing in mind that Jolley is a free option to a club looking for rucking experience...........)

Clisby can stay on the rookie list for another year. I believe that we are able to nominate a rookie before the start of the season that can play; last year it was Magner, this year it will be Clisby. I am happy to promote Magner if the club sees fit. If the rumours about Cross are accurate then we have eight off and five on. This leaves us with three live picks, which is the requirement. One of Magner, Nicholson or Dunn will have to be jettisoned.

3 may be the minimum requirement.- but we may want a bigger turnover than that .............. which means that there is a surprise or two ahead.especially has Cross has now taken a spot

Clisby could be left on the rookie list - but if we are really serious about his development you think we'd want to ease his financial worries by putting him on a full contract. Unlike Magner, he doesn't have a home here - and his body hasn't yet fully developed.

Must be some trades or de-listings to come

Whatever people may think of Dunn, he has size experience and adaptability on his side.At the very least he is the sort of depth player we need ( especially down back)

Can somebody explain why we have to delist, at present we have 32 players on the list, plus the 3 we have brought in makes 35, possibly 3 in the draft totalling 38 players, plus 3 rookies at the moment makes 41, we aiming on this board not to have a full list then?

Also as far as trading goes, you want a player who couldn't crack a regular game in what was acknowledged as the worst team in the comp, yeah right that sounds a good deal

Looked at another way , we have 8 off our main list so far -Sylvia, the 3 retirees ( Davey,Roden, Joel Mac) and 4 delistings ( Davis,Gillies, Sellar,Tynan).

There are 4 definite ons ( Hogan, Michie,Tyson,Vince) plus almost certainly Clisby as a promoted rookie. If Roos wants to keep Magner, he'll be the 6th "on".

Even if we only want 4 "live openings" ( including Cross?), we've got a couple of "outs" to go

I've given up the dreams of him becoming an elite player, it's not going to happen.

The fact is we are very short on players of Sylvia's age group, more so on ones that can earn a game each week.

His footy this season wasn't bad at all and although he won't become the gun we all wanted, he is a solid contributer and we have too few of these as it is. He is required going forward.

This early post summed it up well

Sylvia is exactly the type of player we need ( experience, body size, mid-fielder, goal kicker) Given the weaknesses in our list we are considering offering pick 2 for an experienced midfielder - perhaps even a running defender ( like Heath Shaw) - with a similar mix of upside and downside to Colin. At best we'd get pick 21 for him ........... which means an untested kid for a proven senior player

Just wish he'd sign asap ........ so we can move on. The longer the delay - the more likely he is to be serenaded by someone else. The clubs chasing Daisy Thomas may have Colin as Plan B

Damn, who's our plan B after Simpson?

Simpson has already been senior assistant at a premiership side

The next step for him must surely be as Senior Coach - not as an assistant with a bottom side.

Don't think he could ever have been Plan A

mate all available players played as far as I can tell with perhaps the exception of Clisby (unsure went he was out). No one was sent off for surgery unless their season was over anyway.

I thought we could have made a couple extra available to qualify but Melbourne selection cones first for Melbourne players. If we'd have dropped players to be qualified we'd have been crucified in the media and by everyone else.

Does this work?

All the players we want to keep ( including Clisby) were sent on leave so that they can start pre-season on the earliest possible date

We left Casey with the players we intend to de-list......................

If we don't get a priority pick this year - .no one ever will

I mentioned Chapman's name to the Chris Connolly at a function about 18 months ago - well before Mr McLean stirred the pot and put CC on the skids.

I was a bit surprised that he had" never heard of him "as either a businessman, philanthropist ........ or former player. He said he would specifically follow it up. If he did, he got nowhere!!

Really don't understand this

Here we are as a bottom side with a very limited midfield - and people are actually hoping that one of our few mature-bodied mids leaves!!

Yes - by reference to the champion we hoped he'd become - he has been disappointing .But he's probably playing as consistently now as he ever has. Under free agency, he has no trade currency . I just hope that somehow we can keep him.

Leoncelli left the board as none of the recommendations of the independent internal report were followed through.

Haven't heard that before

If that is correct, then we are at the nub of the problem. Did Schwab suppress It - or did the Board reject it?

Surely the problems are on field problems

Andrew Leoncelli left the Board soon after Bailey was appointed . Jim wasn't well enough to fill the void ......... and all of a sudden the non football people on the Board found a player/coach/footy ops/CEO split

Gary Lyon stood in long enough to sanction some critical appointments before hurrying away to the comforts of his media career. At Xmas Greg Healy joined the Board as Football Director despite the pressures of being CEO of a major Asia Pacific corporation ( Quiksilver). How often has he been to training?

Now Peter Jackson points out that reporting lines through the CEO to the Board make no sense. Where has our Football Director been through all this? Shouldn't he have seen that the reporting lines were not functional?

We were going OK financially until our dysfunctional on field management and performance bit us through the tanking investigation- and pitiful on-field performances.

Let's not just tear down every facet of the club - when our approach to player selection and development over some years has clearly been the problem

Got involved with a live chat with Gerard Healy.

.................................

Seems everyone is on the same page except the board.

Gerard's little brother , Greg , is the club's Football Director. Now even if - as professionals- the two take care to avoid discussing sensitive subjects, I'd be very surprised if Gerard hadn't shared some of his observations with his brother.

Which makes me wonder where Greg sits in all this . Peter Jackson's comments on the confused reporting lines between the FD and CEO - weigh directly on the governance matters specifically overseen by the Football Director, on behalf of the Board.

Greg has not denied that he had to carefully consider his Quicksilver obligations before joining the Board. There is no evidence that the has added any strength to the Board's understanding of the workings of the FD - or ensured that appropriate policies and procedures have been adopted. Moreover he appears to have condoned the fact that our footy department operates under four heads ( Craig, Harrington, Mahoney and Neeld) - none of whom has the long term contract Viney has.

Is Sugar to the fore in sorting out all this mess? If not what's he doing as Football Director?

...... Jared explained how cut up both he and Moloney were after being removed from the leadership group by Neeld upon his entry into the club. He really felt disenchanted that as an older player he was so easily disregarded in place of youth, especially since neither was given an opportunity to prove themselves. He also suggested that Moloney was a great leader at the club, and did a lot of work with the younger players outside training. I don't want to paraphrase any more, but please have a listen if you want a real insight into the club from the perspective of a highly respected senior player. Mark Neeld's decision to demote senior players like Moloney and Rivers was as bad as Bailey's decision to move on Junior.

I don't think it takes a lot to work out what happened and why.....

The Green-Moloney- Rivers leadership group went to the Board on the eve of 186 and asked them to sack CS. When CS - and his mate, Gary Lyon - starting talking to possible replacements the first thing they said was that the leadership group had rebelled and that they expected the new coach to pull it apart and start afresh. The day CS prevailed over Bailey was the day the leaders effectively lost their jobs. We are kidding ourselves if we think that Neeld started assessing the leaders with a clean sheet of paper.

Neeld may have irretrievably "lost" the players with his tough initial stance - but I'm not sure that would have been entirely his fault.I'm prepared to give him the rest of the season to demonstrate progress ................ but I reserve the right to change my mind if we get thrashed this week!!

Garry said he doesn't have the time to get involved. What does he do besides the Classifieds, The Footy Show and Triple M footy? Count his money?

Terribly disappointed in Gary's attitude

He was at pains to tell us that he stepped into the breach out of love and respect for Jim Stynes. Well if that gesture was genuine, then he would be busting his gut to make sure that his actions lead to the success Jim so desperately wanted to see.

"Sorry Jimma, you probably know by now that I haven't fixed things like you asked me to. . I can't be bothered lifting a finger to help sort things out now As an independent media person, I can't be seen to defend the footy club because it is playing crap footy. Although I was acting director responsible for setting up the current FD, I've decided to keep my mouth shut and let Scwabby carry the can. I'm out Mate."

Too busy Gaz? McGuire and Brayshaw have 5 times the media commitments you have.Don is chairman of Reach - how many Community Service organisations occupy your time?

It was of course only a matter of time before Caro took the opportunity to throw more muck in the direction of Cameron Schwab. For a long time now she has done her best to make his position untenable. She has persistently blurred the differences between supposition and fact - and between causality and coincidence.She produced nothing new this morning - just returned to her anti CS hobby horse.

It is beginning to look like she is going to win .............CS - whatever good he may have done off the field - is starting to look like a dead duck

Caro - facts please.

CS has "history with the AFL" .The AFL set out to" get him" on tanking - but couldn't pin him. How clever must this man be?

Jack Watts is struggling.Somehow that gets back to CS apparently. Does Jack regard CS as the arch villain? Where are you getting all your up to date info from Caro?

You are only a phone call way Andy?

Well your organisation spent 7 months trying to tear us apart.................... you forced us to outlay at least $500k in legal fees and you imposed on us a $500k penalty........ you reopened wounds we were trying to heal ............................ and now you are only a phone call away!!

You have got to be kidding!!

The AFL has exacerbated all our failings over recent times. Even McLardy's most strident critics would have to agree that the AFL has quadrupled the problems he has had to confront recently - and now he is supposed to look on it as a a friend ?!

The AFL's whose rules encouraged us to establish a losing culture beat us for playing their game.Now they are only a phone call away ! Give us a break!!

Believe me, I'm as upset with that performance as you are.

The fact that Malthouse rates Neeld as highly as he does gives me confidence in his ability. I think he'll demonstrate his worth to us in due course.

However, the one thing we need from supporters right now is for them to renew memberships, and get behind the club - not go running.

I hated today's performance as much as anybody.

I just hope it was an aberration.

For years I've had reason to give up on Melbourne - but I've stuck it out - and I'm going to stick it out again. Ron is right. A week is a long time in football. Round 1 is often an aberration ............ and we can only hope that we will see it that way in a month's time.

A number of people have commented on positive things from Mclarty's speech last week.

I have read parts of it on the MFC site and a couple of things worry me.

It said "McLardy was adamant the club did not want fickle supporters who chose to support

the Demons only in good times".

I am sure we want anyone who buys a membership. of course there will be people who lose interest after five nears at the bottom.

But why give them a reason to not join.

If I was wavering my response would be " oh the MFC don't need me confirms what I was thinking"

I cannot see any reason to say that, no upside in my view.

He also said "dismissed as just making up the numbers"

The people saying this are right we have been and in 2012 we were irrelevant.

Again not sure why you would say that.

“The cost of the investigation and the $500,000 fine has and will hurt us. We

are currently reforecasting our financial position in light of that,” he

said.

“Our aim has always been to remain operating debt free and post a profit, but

this will be sorely tested this year.

Is this a warning of a big loss in 2013?

I have a bad feeling about 2013, unless we show a marked improvement on the field it is looking very glum.

I must say that I didn't object to these comments Old Dee.I thought Don's speech soundly balanced positivity with realism.

For years Melbourne supporters have been slagged off as soft "theatre-goers " just as happy to waltz off to the snow as to watch their team struggle. The club is increasingly trying to get the message across that Melbourne supporters are passionate about their club. We aren't going to win any competition for supporter numbers - we want to be known as a club whose supporters stick - and fight.

I suspect that he was warning us that a loss is in store for 2013. What with a $500k fine, legal fees of at least that amount, a distracted Community Relations Manager - and heaps of bad publicity to discourage potential members and sponsors - Don was just stating the obvious. Let's quietly remind the AFL of the damage their criminally unfair investigation has done to our club as equalization talks hot up

If we can lift on the field - and secure enough match day revenues in these tough economic times to keep the loss to less than $500k - I reckon we will have done well. Sad - but true.

Not off supporters of drink driving and domestic abuse advocates I don't..

Sweet dreams petal.

Struggling to believe that a sober Demonlander would post drivel like this

I will happily admit to not liking his appointment. However I was happy to be proved wrong. Problem is I haven't been. Our club needs a better CEO, I'm sure you would agree with that. He was given the job because he was linked to the old boys network. They then had us dragged through the tanking [censored]. Do not forget Schwab had a large hand in how that was handlled. Have you ever thought that maybe its his continued errors that now leave us scratching around on Page 70 of the herald sun for sponsors

I've said before and I'll say it again : sponsors are hard to find - especially in this economy- because we haven't won a flag for 50 years - not because our present CEO is not performing!!

Your argument simply does not wash.

Leave it Roost it, you're just going round in circles, banging on about whatever it is you're banging on about. There's no story here, move along.

A neat summary : very good advice

....................Before people jump down my throat for criticizing Schwab remember it's a large part of his job is to attract and keep good sponsors. All other clubs besides us have managed to do so.

t

And how many of those other clubs won 4 games last year? And how many have had their brand dragged through the mud by the media for the the last 7 months? And how many have the same number of prime time blockbusters to promise potential sponsors?

If you are stating that it is Schwab's fault that sponsors haven;t been throwing money at us through this period ........... then every thinking supporter we have will be jumping down your throat - not just me!

Sounds like you've just had been a cup of lemon tea with Caro

I reckon all this negative supposition has gone far enough. I have it on good authority that one embittered former employee really stirred up the stove. No doubt other people formerly associated with the club made a few negative comments about the events of 2009, 2011 and 2012 .This doesn't mean that dozens of former staff or directors are lurking around the next corner ready to drag us even further down as some seem to be suggesting.Let's face it, Its fairly hard to avoid negative observations when you asked about Melbourne in those years!!

Today's club - current board and staff - has done well to maintain a united front through this investigation. We need to take comfort in that - and back the FD to lead us onward and upward.

Forward march!!

I am afraid I struggle to understand why the majority of Demonlanders have concluded that Royal is no good. He doesn't come over particularly well in media interviews - but that doesn't mean he can't coach. Our midfield struggled last year - but so did our forwards - and so did our backs. Of the 3 coaches - Royal probably hd the weakest cattle relative to the rest of the competition.

Royal is a career coach .He was considered critical the emergence of the Bulldogs under Wallace - and was considered unlucky ( perhaps because of his lucklustre media work) not to pick up senior job. He coached the Saints midfield into two Grand Finals. With his track record as a senior assistant coach, he may be Neeld's most valuable off-sider. No premiership ..... but a clear association with clubs.that got the absolute maximum out of their midfield groups. How many would he have won if he hadn't coached against Swan, Pendlebury and Thomas or Ablett Bartel Ling and Selwood.THe list goes on..........

Now I 'm not saying that he is critical to our coaching structure - but equally reading through this thread I haven't seen any evidence to support the proposition that he is not up to it . As with rpfc, "I would love to see someone come up with an anti-Royal argument that doesn't boil down to "I like shiny new objects!""